It's Almost Supernatural

When Pigs Fly: BBC and Al-Jazeera Show Pro-Israel Bias!

The Media Review Network has a story on their website from the Guardian by Sharif Nashashibi which claims that not only the BBC, but also Al-Jazeera, favour Israel in their coverage.

Sharif debunked his own study. Applying his methods use on the BBC to Al-Jazeera he was forced to conclude that Al-Jazeera is also biased in favour of Israel.

I bet his analysis would conclude that even the Media Review Network are pro-Israel!

Find the article on the MRN site at http://www.mediareviewnet.com/index.php/200906291050/News-Headlines/BBC-anti-Israel-bias-is-a-myth.php

See a response from Honest Reporting at the Jerusalem Post: BBC Pro Israel? Don't make me laugh

Weekender Events Focus on Israel

Tomorrow sees the start of a series of public events jointly sponsored by the Business Day’s weekend paper, the Weekender, Johannesburg Workshop in Theory and Criticism and the Faculty of Humanities at Wits University.

In a series of 8 lectures, 2 of them are devoted to Palestinian propaganda. No other country specific lectures are scheduled thus far. Nothing on the recent Iranian human rights abuses, Sudan’s ongoing genocide, the violence in Sri Lanka where more Tamil tigers were killed in one week than Palestinians and Israelis combined were killed in the intifada, or the calamitous upheaval of democracy in Zimbabwe.

And we shouldn’t be surprised because in South Africa the only issue is the Palestinian issue.

The list of events can be found here: Weekender Events

The Israel focused events are:

PUBLIC LECTURE: THE QUESTION OF PALESTINE, THE QUESTION OF ZION AND THE SOUTH AFRICAN EXPERIMENT Venue: RICHARD WARD BUILDING (WISER), EAST CAMPUS Date: 13 Jul 2009 Time: 18H00 to 20H00 Register By: 13 Jul 2009

PUBLIC LECTURE: THE QUESTION OF PALESTINE, THE QUESTION OF ZION AND THE SOUTH AFRICAN EXPERIMENT Venue: RICHARD WARD BUILDING (WISER), EAST CAMPUS Date: 13 Jul 2009 Time: 18H00 to 20H00 Register By: 13 Jul 2009

Interview with Dr. Alon Liel, former Israeli ambassador to South Africa

Amongst the impressive items which populate Dr Liel’s CV, the one that stands out the most is his position as the Israeli ambassador to South Africa during the turbulent post-apartheid years between 1992-1994.

I recently had the opportunity to interview Dr. Liel following some public pronouncements from him supporting Obama’s new vision for the Middle East. I started with a question about how South Africa has changed since his first visit here as a diplomat in 1986.

Liel painted two contrasting pictures of South Africa, one as the diplomat in 1986 and the other as an ordinary visitor in 2004. Liel says that his visits in 1999 and 2004 were like coming to two different counties. The change is immediately apparent at the airports. “The way they look at you, treat you, look at your documents is completely different”. In 1986, even with a diplomatic passport, he still faced a rigid atmosphere with officials that looked like soldiers on alert all of the time. In 2004 he witnessed a different and relaxed atmosphere with young women and men, not necessarily concentrating on what they have to do, taking the place of the once rigid and alert soldiers. He witnessed a country that now saw itself as a part of Africa, with the black population more involved in place of a country whose vision was to become more like Europe.

Dr. Liel has an impressive record in the Foreign Ministry where as director general he led an unofficial negotiation track with the Syrians.

Liel, a strong critic of the Bush Administration, laments the policy of looking at the Middle East as a region of terrorists and allies – “Cowboys and Indians”. Israel were the good guys and Iran, Syria, Hamas and Hizbullah the bad. The approach was to help good guys beat the bad guys.

Dr. Liel doesn’t see Hamas, Hizballah and co. as good guys, but he thinks the Bush administration should have learned from Israel’s historical approach which was to see itself surrounded by enemies where everyone is a bad guy until they will one day become convinced that they are good guys.

Liel thinks it’s essential to have an American administration willing to give everyone a chance and engage, even if he is a terrorist and doesn’t like you. Challenged on this approach he readily admits that he doesn’t know if it will succeed – “but I know the Bush approach failed.”

Perhaps incorrectly awarding credit to Obama when it ought to go to Bush for his drive towards freedom in the Middle East, Liel claims that the recent results of the elections in Lebanon where Hizballah was defeated in parliamentary elections, coupled with the recent protests in Iran, is a result of the impact that Obama is having by helping the moderates.

Gaza evacuation

I asked Dr. Liel if he includes the evacuation of Gaza as part of what he describes as a “movement backwards away from peace” during the Bush era. He candidly replied that, although, technically there was progress, the fact that Hamas took over is indeed a big step backwards. “Having the Palestinian people divided into two geographic entities that don’t see eye-to-eye makes peace more difficult to achieve.”

Dr. Liel concedes that it is difficult to determine who is responsible for what during the Bush era but remains adamant that the US, as the only super-power, was the key player and needs to accept overall responsibility.

Bibi Speech

I explained to Dr. Liel that the Jewish South African community officially backed a two-state solution and the initial rejectionist approach of Netanyahu put us in a position where at best, support for a solution that Israel was rejecting was the most we could hope to extract from the South African government.

Dr. Liel was amused at how things have changed. When he was ambassador, the official Jewish leadership vehemently objected to the Oslo process and tried to convince Israel that what they were doing was wrong. But times have changed. Liel went on... “In the last 15 years since Oslo, every Prime Minister, including those elected by Likud, have supported the 2 state solution, including Netanyahu himself. What Bibi did after he was elected 6 months ago was to change the position of Israel. And he is entitled to do that as the elected Prime Minister. But it was a new thing for the region that Israel went back to objecting to the establishment of a Palestinian state.”

We spoke only a couple of days after Netanyahu’s speech at the Bar Ilan University and Liel was surprisingly upbeat about what he heard. Although he agrees that at a practical level the speech doesn’t change the situation on the ground, he said that he saw in Netanyahu’s speech “Obama’s vision from Bibi’s mouth”. (For those that might not know, in the speech, Netanyahu once again endorsed the creation of a Palestinian state albeit a demilitarized one.)

Analysing Netanyahu’s body language he said that it was easy to see that this was not Netanyahu’s dream. Liel, somewhat morosely, acknowledged that it doesn’t look very promising, or perhaps even possible, to create a Palestinian state in the foreseeable future as long as the Palestinian people are divided. Liel thinks there is a long way to go until the gaps between Israel and a united leadership of the Palestinian people can be breached. “As long as Hamas is such a negative force, I don’t think any Prime Minister in Israel, left or right, can sign a deal with a leadership that represents only half the people.” “No leader”, he continued, “can sign a deal with a state in the West Bank when you have an Iranian proxy in Gaza.” Again, there is some ire for the Bush administration – “the situation is very sad and maybe also the result of the 8 years of Bush when he insisted on deepening the rift between Hamas and Fatah by supporting Fatah and punishing Hamas.”

Responding to my question on whether the Palestinians can ever build the institutions requisite to a fully functioning state, Liel dismissed it and explained that this isn’t just a matter of building institutions; it’s a broader matter of rebuilding nations.

So how, I asked, does Israel work at changing the landscape? Do we continue to isolate Hamas, or do we engage?

Dr. Liel’s response was a yes and a no. “We can never tell what can bring about the change. There certainly has to be a change in attitude from Hamas. They have to recognise Israel. I cannot tell what can bring about a change in the position. Half a year ago we attacked Gaza and it didn’t change their position. We don’t know what will bring about the change but the change will come. It will, most likely, be a combination of pressure and attempts to engage. Everybody will have to change a little bit before this landscape is altered.”

SA and the Palestinians

I asked Dr. Liel about the role South Africa can play in the peace process and he replied, almost instantly, that there is no chance that South Africa can play a role because of their strong ties with the Palestinians. The mediator needs to be as neutral and as balanced as possible. Both sides need a mediator that they can trust and at the moment the Obama administration is the only mediator that can offer carrots, sticks, and most importantly, trust.

Dr. Liel shared a small anecdote from his second visit to South Africa, as Barak’s foreign policy advisor in 1999. The South African elections had just taken place and President Mbeki had just been elected South Africa’s second democratic president. At the time, Liel attended a meeting between former president Nelson Mandela and Prime Minister Ehud Barak. At the meeting, Mandela offered his good services (Liel is not certain whether this offer went beyond his personal effort) but Prime Minister Barak diplomatically responded that if there is a role South Africa can play then it’s between Israel and Syria. Mandela acted on his offer and went to speak to Hafez-al-Assad – but he didn’t get very far. The prevailing attitude in Israel is if we can gain from the South African experience, it’s on the Syrian and not the Palestinian track.

 

Syria

Dr. Liel has a history of involvement in unofficial “track 2” negotiations with the Syrians, particularly when he served as the director general of the foreign affairs ministry. In this unofficial capacity, he has come to believe that the distance between the Israelis and Syrians can be overcome if official talks, with US backing, are to resume.

Liel thinks Syria holds the key to any possible progress towards peace in the near future. He believes that Syria has a stable leadership and wants to rejoin the moderate camp in the Middle East to get closer to the West. “We were speaking to them in the last few years, still there is an alliance with Iran and Syria is very dependent on Iran, but we have the feeling that this dependence worries people in Syria – people in Syria are worried that they are losing their independence. This provides a possibility to move forward.”

Signing a deal with Syria will dramatically affect the situation with the Palestinians and will weaken the Hamas leadership, some of whom sit in Damascus because, Liel explains, “you can’t sign an agreement and continue to host terrorists sitting in your capital city”.

Liel says that Washington is the key to a deal with Syria. “If Washington strengthens the dialogue, if we see an American ambassador in Damascus, then we may see renewed peace talks. The time is right to move on the Syrian track; not the Palestinians one.”

The obvious question was how Israel can be sure that the next generation of Syrian leaders will honour an agreement with Israel. Arab leaders lack legitimacy because they are not elected; they inherit power or win it through violence. Israel is expected to give up something tangible, and we have to live in hope that new Syrian leaders will honour a piece of paper with a peace agreement.

Dr. Liel believes that the Syrians have shown the required stability to gain our trust. “When I was a child, at school we were taught you can’t sign an agreement because in the Arab world, one day you are dealing with one leader and then the next day his cousin stabs him in the back and takes over.”

But Liel continues, “we’ve seen leaders who have been in power for almost 20 years and the Prime Minister, during this time, that was assassinated was our own! So what we say about the lack of stability could be said by Arabs about us.” Liel realised he was pushing this comparison too far and retracted somewhat, but still, sticking to the point, continued, “Look, with us they can know that they are dealing with a real democracy that will honour any official agreements, but they will say, one day you are dealing with an Olmert and the next day you have a guy like Netanyahu who is exactly the opposite.”

Liel argues that the Syrians have a good record of respecting agreements they have signed with Israel and that they look much more stable now than ever before. He emphasised that expectations change, “In Netanyahu’s first term he said ‘no peace with Arabs until they are all democracies.’ But we have given up on that and understand that it’s not for us to decide who the Arab leaders should be. Basher Assad is in his 8th year in office, he is a very experienced president and as far as we can guess he is quite popular. He is much more outspoken, gives more interviews, he is more exposed. We don’t foresee any dangers about the control of his country.”

Zuma Continues Illiberal Foreign Policy

South Africa voted to disband the United Nations Human Rights Council investigation into war crimes in Sudan, last week in Geneva. I really can’t say it’s a surprise. South Africa’s international support for tyrants and their human rights abuses from Zimbabwe to Burma over the last few years are all well documented. But many influential commentators had hoped that Zuma may change course. This is obviously not to be the case.

What is interesting is that not all African countries followed South Africa’s lead. Mauritius and Zambia bravely voted for continued scrutiny of Sudan’s human rights violations, while Angola, Burkina Faso, Gabon, Ghana, Madagascar and Senegal all abstained.

After the resolution was thankfully passed and the investigator retained, the Ugandan representative in a rare display of disunity chastised fellow African countries that had sided with Sudan. He declared “From the Holocaust to the genocide in Rwanda, we are always reminded that never again should we allow these events to happen through inaction or political expediency”. He praised the Council’s resolution on Sudan, saying it “reasserted the credibility of the Council” and thanked Council members who “have acted with courage on their convictions.”

Given our own history it seems unbelievable that it would be necessary, but President Zuma and the ANC would do well to listen to these wise words.

(Hat hit UNWATCH)

Tony Leon’s ‘racism’ — a Jewish pathology?

  Former leader of the Opposition in South Africa Tony Leon has become embroiled in an ugly mud slinging match over the suitability of controversial Western Cape Judge President John Hlophe for a future seat on the constitutional court. Leon, no stranger to being called a racist for his outspoken criticism of ANC policy will probably not be surprised by the latest attack from the Justice for Hlophe Alliance (see Leon should apologise for Hlophe remarks - JHA). But South African Jewry should be outraged.

Leon, on account of being Jewish, is accused of trying to import the racist discourse of the Arab-Israeli conflict into South African society. Absurdly, almost a third of the response issued by the Justice for Hlophe Alliance deals with the views of an extremist fringe in Israel towards its Arab citizens. Not only did Leon not refer to the Middle East or Jewish related issues in his original article, but the issue has nothing even to do with minority rights. Somehow Leon’s use of the term “fifth column” to describe Hlophe and his supporters in relation to the constitution has been deemed to be racist Jewish language common to right wing nationalist parties in Israel. The irony of course, is that Leon began his piece elegantly explaining that the origin of the term is actually the Spanish civil war.

Now love Leon or hate (I personally am in the former camp), agree with his criticism of Hlophe or condemn it, his ethnic-religious affiliation should have no bearing on the debate. The fact that he is Jewish or that the term “fifth column” has been used by people on the political extreme in the Jewish state is just not relevant. So why was it used? For the same reason the Nationalist Party ad nauseum assailed Helen Suzman for her Jewish roots. It is a classic political trick to prey on popularist anti-Jewish sentiments in an attempt to discredit and silence the critic.

The South African Jewish Community, in particular the South African Jewish Board of Deputies, cannot let this incident go unchallenged. We cannot let the Jewish origin of public figures be used as a tool to bash them. Remaining silent would only serve to legitimise this tactic. I understand that the leadership of the community may be nervous to wade into this fiery debate, particularly given the strong support Hlophe seems to have within the ANC. But there is a need to show some backbone here and stand up and defend Jewish rights. Otherwise we will always be de facto second-class citizens in this country.

Official Jewish Community Responds to HSRC Witch Trial

The official Jewish leadership has responded to the brazen misuse of public funds that is the HSRC Report (view details of the report here). The following response has been sent to the Minister of Science and Technology.

Dear Minister Pandor The Human Sciences Research Council, which falls under the Ministry of Science and Technology, has just released a Report entitled “Occupation, Colonialism, Apartheid? A re-assessment of Israel’s practices in the occupied Palestinian territories under international law”. This was carried out under the auspices of the HSRC’s Democracy and Governance Programme Middle East Project. The intention of this research project was to provide “a scholarly resource for the South African government and civil society and the concerned international community”. In this regard, it can unequivocally be said to have failed conclusively. It seems all too clear that the researchers decided beforehand what they wished to establish and thereafter set about selectively compiling evidence and arguments to support this predetermined conclusion. As a result, their report is fundamentally flawed, providing a skewed, unrealistic analysis of the Middle East conflict that certainly will not redound to the credit of the HSRC. At the core of this failure is the fact that the Report adopts throughout an artificial “Actor vs. Acted Upon” paradigm through which to interpret the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The Israeli side is always the ‘acting’ party, whose actions are subjected to the minutest critical scrutiny. The Palestinians, by contrast, are depicted as essentially passive and, it therefore follows, guiltless of any wrongdoing. It is Israel that has multiple obligations; the Palestinians seemingly have none. The Report arrives at the sweeping conclusion that Israel’s “racially discriminatory” policies vis-à-vis the Palestinians “cannot be justified on reasonable security grounds” yet at no stage seeks to grapple with the details of just what those security concerns might be. Just what are the on-the-ground realities of terrorist attacks on its citizens that have motivated Israel to impose the kind of restrictive measures on the Palestinians that the Report continually deplores? Put another way, how many recorded attacks have there been, what form have they taken, who has been targeted, what was the role in all of this of the Palestinian leadership and what would any nation similarly threatened be reasonably expected to do in response to such acts? One would expect responsible, professional researchers to delve very carefully into such questions. There is a vast, and ever growing, body of sobering evidence of Palestinian violence directed against Israel and its citizens, both within the West Bank and Gaza and within Israel proper. Such acts of hostility, in which civilians more often than not were the targets, number in the tens of thousands. All this evidence is readily available. The record shows, amongst many other things, that the Palestinian leadership has been directly responsible for planning and carrying out terrorist attacks, that humanitarian resources have been abused for this purpose (e.g. ambulances used for weapons smuggling) and that the propagation of racial hatred and incitement to violence against Jews permeates every level of Palestinian society. Astonishingly, the HSRC Report has nothing to say about any of this. Nowhere in its more than three hundred pages does one find these crucial aspects of the Israeli-Palestinian dispute being addressed, even to a limited degree. Judging by their approach, we can only conclude that the researchers believe the Palestinian leadership to have no reciprocal obligations to foster an environment in which the two peoples can co-exist in peace and equality. It is, self-evidently, meaningless to level sweeping accusations of colonialism and apartheid against a sovereign State without rigorously examining the context in which those actions take place. That the Report studiedly avoids doing this can only lead to the conclusion that those responsible were motivated by their ideological biases rather than by a genuine desire to unravel the complexities of what all agree is one of the world’s most difficult conflict situations. Examining the backgrounds of the chief editor of the Report, Dr. Virginia Tilley, the principle contributors and the sponsoring organisations, one is not surprised to discover a common thread of intensive anti-Israel sentiment. Virtually all have long records of campaigning against Israel, and as such should be seen as activists rather than neutral scholars. That the Report ultimately produced is decidedly not scholarly as reflected in its clearly biased original terms of reference, its original motivation (by Special Rapporteur to the UNHRC John Dugard, internationally known for his partisan views on the Middle east question) and its selective and partisan researchers and sponsors. Whatever it was intended to achieve, the Report that has emerged serves to obscure rather than clarify, unjustly condemns one side of the conflict while by pointed omission exonerating the other and constitutes a distinctly ones-sided analysis of a complex international issue under the guise of independent scholarship. The SA Jewish Board of Deputies and SA Zionist Federation hereby express our profound regret over what we consider a misuse of public funds by those intent on pursuing a grossly partisan political agenda. This is decidedly not what the Human Sciences Research Council, a scholarly, statutory body of the South African Government, was set up to achieve. Yours respectfully ZEV KRENGEL NATIONAL CHAIRMAN SA JEWISH BOARD OF DEPUTIES AVROM KRENGEL NATIONAL CHAIRMAN SA ZIONIST FEDERATION

Update - Kasrils at the HSRC

Voice of the Cape has the transcript of Former Minister of Intelligence Ronnie Kasrils' speech at the HSRC symposium this past weekend - it's here, if you have the stomach for it.

Guess Who's Coming to SA

Click the clown's nose to find out.

Dept of Foreign Affairs Funds Apartheid Israel Study

Mike Berger from Solar Plexus has compiled a newsletter on a perfectly orchestrated propaganda campaign by the Palestinian lobby in South Africa. In short, they have abused the mandate of the Human Sciences Research Council (HSRC) to craft a 2 year study answering the insanely partisan and agriculturally selective questions on whether Israel is practicing occupation, colonialism and apartheid.

• You can access the media release, Executive Summary, and full report here

The study has been paid for by South African taxpayers (the HSRC is a Government sponsored and funded organisation) and is being presented to the South African Department of Foreign Affairs in an attempt delete their current support for a two state solution (they don’t say that as such, rather, they claim that the report is available as a ‘scholarly resource’ for the Department). I should note in fact that the 2 year study, rather bizarrely, was actually funded by the Department of Foreign Affairs themselves.

The study sanctimoniously claims that is was forged to test the hypothesis posed by Professor John Dugard, in his capacity as UN Special Rapporteur on the human rights situation in the Palestinian territories occupied by Israel, that elements of the occupation constitute forms of apartheid and colonialism. The editor of the study is none other than Virginia Tilley, author of “the one state solution” who militantly argued that Israel is an apartheid state way before the sheltered income for this study was ever dreamed of.

Would the HSRC use taxpayer’s money to fund a study on the truth about global warming, only to have it led by a partisan researcher already famous for denying that it is taking place? No. So, why then fund a study on Israel, colonialism and apartheid led by a woman whose support for such views is already well-known and documented? This here is not a study that searches for a conclusion. It starts with a conlusion and searches for an argument.

The purpose of the study is not just to influence our foreign policy. It’s far broader objective is to call on the International Court of Justice to intervene with an advisory opinion on whether the policies and practices of Israel within the Occupied Palestinian Territories violate the norms prohibiting apartheid and colonialism, and if so, what of the legal consequences.

Mike Berger explains this wider objective: “[It aims to ]set the stage for global ostracism and punitive action against Israel with the intention of bringing Ahmadinejad's threat to reality, namely, the elimination of Israel as we know it. This is to be accomplished not through nuclear weapons but by the cumulative impact of isolation, sanctions, boycotts and moral opprobrium.”

Although the study focuses on Israel’s policies and practices in the Occupied Territories, the goal of this study is not to end the occupation; it is to end Israel. Its goals can be found in Virginia Tilley’s very own polemic, “The One State Solution”.

For a far more in-depth review and analysis of this study and it’s complementary symposium, which takes place this weekend in Cape Town, please be sure to read Mike Berger’s report. I have posted it in its entirety below. Click the "continue reading link" to view Berger's newsletter.

Side note

Tilley was once included on the panel of a debate on the single state solution which took place at Consitution Hill. Mike (our Mike) asked her where is the debate on the single state solution to the India/Pakistan conflict, to which she famously and snottily replied "that one is taking place down the road!". I think she may have even pointed.

It's a small little memory of Tilley's obfuscation that I will always remember.

Learning to Live with a Likud Government

The new Israeli government headed by Benjamin Netanyahu poses an interesting challenge for South African Jewry. Despite the broad pro-Israel support among the vast majority of South African Jews, there are major internal disagreements over Israeli policy in the territories. This came to the fore in this week’s fiercely critical editorial and opinion piece in the South African Jewish Report.

There is no doubt that a large and influential block exists within South African Jewry that still supports the idea of Greater Israel and the settlement movement. But there are also many who now understand the necessity of a 2 state solution and the painful concessions that entails. Of course this includes traditional leftwing Zionist organizations like Habonim but official umbrella bodies like the South African Jewish Board of Deputies have also, publically at least, adopted this position. So what is the community now to do when the government of Israel refuses to explicitly support the 2 state solution?

When I was formally involved in communal affairs during the Sharon years, it used to be common practice, if not principal, that umbrella Jewish organisations like the South African Zionist Federation, the Jewish Board of Deputies and the South African Union of Jewish Students support the Israeli government of the day. The logic to this position goes something like, if we accept that Israel is a democratic society and the government is a true reflection of the will of the Israeli people, who are we as South African Jewry to argue with their choice? Given that we don’t fight in the army and/or pay taxes we should not be determining Israeli policy.

On the other hand, these organisations are answerable to the entire South African Jewish community. If there is strong and widespread opposition to a certain Israeli policy or even to the entire government among South African Jewry, should democratic organisations not reflect that? Perhaps some sort of poll or even contested political election may be necessary.

But for me, more important is how we as a community respond to each other. I hope we can use this opportunity for some reasoned debate within the community. That means not only that we should be open to providing a forum for criticising Israeli policy as the South African Jewish Report has done this week, but space should also be given to those who would wish to support the current government.

Israel faces many difficult dilemmas. The issues are very emotional for many of us including myself. But I hope that we can carry on a debate based on the facts and not the people. Steve and I have both been extremely busy the last few weeks. But I hopefully will have a bit for time on my hands in the next few months. I hope that IAS, as we have done in the past, can serve as a vehicle for the type of reasoned debate I am talking about.

MRN Propaganda 101: Lie!

Last month the Media Review Network (MRN) used their seemingly bottomless vault of cash to pay for a full page Palestinian propaganda advert. It may have appeared in numerous dailies, but I saw it in the Citizen. The advert, entitled “How Palestine became Israel” displays 3 maps which the MRN display as a story of thieving and betrayal. To maximise the propaganda effect, it is bordered by a series of scissors encouraging the reader to cut it out and display. They egregiously write “Please cut out and display map”.

Whilst there is nothing stopping anyone from paying for adverts to push their view, we should demand that the content is truthful. The MRN fell short of this mark. And it shouldn’t surprise you. You should remember that earlier this year, we caught them out in a lie denying that they had showcased articles on their website about a Jewish Broederbond (see full post here). This seems to be the behaviour we should continue to expect from them.

A friend of mine, Victor Gordon (don’t miss his latest play, Harry and Ed), penned this letter to the Citizen, exposing the paid for lie.

Sir The ability to re-write history is a specialty of the Media Review Network and is ably demonstrated in their advert, "How Palestine became Israel." The fact that they had to pay to publicise their propaganda is in itself telling. To cite just one example; "The UN passed Resolution 242 ... ordering Israel to withdraw from the occupied territories". The deceitful inclusion of the word "the" deliberately changes the intent from the actual wording of the resolution, "...to withdraw from occupied territories." At the time, the word "the" was purposely omitted to place the onus on all the warring parties to negotiate new and secure borders which the Arabs have consistently refused to do (the famous "3 No's"). Yet Israel alone is always blamed for its so-called refusal to abide by this resolution. The MRN would not have committed this error unintentionally. Res. 242 is simply too well known. The distortion can only be deliberate, reflecting the tone and purpose of much of the "information" offered by this organization - distorted propaganda. If the MRN cannot be trusted with so crucial a fact how can it be trusted with any other of its claims, like the reference to "Palestinians owning 99.6% of the land in 1897", considering that the entire region fell under Ottoman rule from 1841 to 1917. The "Palestinians" who were largely nomadic Arabs, owned not one inch. But one need look no further than the 3 maps chosen to illustrate "How Palestine became Israel ...", except that a fourth map deserves inclusion - the one showing the land mass stretching from the Mediterranean Sea to the borders of Iraq that fell under the British mandate. With 80% designated to the establishment of Transjordan, the remaining 20% was finally partitioned by the UN giving roughly equal portions to the Arabs and the Jews, of who's portion 65% included the arid Negev Desert. Ironically, instead of these maps revealing to what degree Arab land has shrunk since 1948, they highlight the futility of the wars they launched against Israel in trying to regain what they had previously lost. Perhaps the MRN should reconsider its headline, "How Palestine became Israel...", the answer being, "by opting to fight two disastrous wars (1948 & 1967) and losing both." Bad choice - but hardly Israel’s fault. It was the Arabs who chose the option of war and have gone backwards ever since.

Israeli Army Prosecutes Delinquent Soldiers

Abuses of power take place on all sides during all wars. The distinguishing feature of a state is how it handles these. What critics of Israel fail to understand is that its democratic nature provides internal institutional mechanisms to punish and prevent the excesses of a few wayward soldiers. To this end, there is a story in Haaretz last week about an IDF soldier who was arrested for stealing a credit card from a home in the northern Gaza strip during the recent war against Hamas and using it to withdraw 1,600 Shekels.

Of course this is a disgusting act. Using war as a cover for stealing private property for no justifiable reason other than self enrichment, should be prohibited. It goes against the moral code of the IDF and the Jewish people. It is disappointing of course to know that even one such act took place. We need to examine why it happened. But most importantly Israel has made it clear not only by its words, but by its actions, in arresting the guilty soldier that such behavior will not be tolerated.

What I find remarkable about the whole story is how well the institutional control mechanism within the IDF functioned. The article reports that a Palestinian residing in the northern Gaza Strip lodged a complaint with the army after the war that his credit card was stolen during Operation Cast Lead. He presented them with his credit card statement revealing a number of products had been purchased in Israel with it. In light of the seriousness of the complaint, the military prosecution ordered the Military Police Investigation unit to open probes in which they would take evidence in order to examine the claims. The unit found the Palestinian’s claim to be accurate, found the guilty party and arrested him.

It is firstly amazing that the Palestinian man chose to report the theft in the first place. From what we read in the newspapers, the IDF is a Palestinian child killing machine. Why would any sane Palestinian have believed that he would get justice from it? Not over a death but a few hundred dollars? And we know how those Jews like their dollars, just ask South Africa’s former Foreign Minister. Secondly, why the evil IDF would even have bothered to follow up on the complaint. And then thirdly, when finding guilt, actually go to the trouble of arresting the soldier and not just crying security concerns. This incident demonstrates that Israel’s critics have missed a thing or two about the morality of its army!

This is obviously only one swan, but it is does carry with it the hope of summer. Those who really care about Palestinian and Israeli wellbeing would be advised to take note. This is not Yugoslavia or Rwanda or even Faluja or Kabul. There is no need to impose an outside trial on the IDF and Israeli politicians for war crimes. Its courts and police investigation units will do it for you where necessary. If Judge Goldstone and co really wanted to make a difference, rather than spending their summer on a witch hunt, they should come to Israel to offer their expertise in strengthening these types of internal institutions.

Harry and Ed - Don't miss it!

Over the past few months I have highlighted some of the tireless individuals from the general public who spend way too much energy defending Israel in our media. One of the finest is playwright Victor Gordon, whose many opinion pieces and letters ensure that a rational and intellectual explanation of the conflict is always at close-hand.

Victor's latest play, Harry and Ed, is showing at the moment and I urge you all to make sure you don’t miss this compelling story of a remarkable friendship that eventually helped establish the State of Israel.

HARRY & ED: The drama behind the birth of Israel Written by Victor Gordon Starring Anthony Fridjohn and David Butler Directed by Robert Fridjohn Dates: 1 - 7 June 2009 Venue: Old Mutual Theatre on the Square Bookings: Theatre 011 883 8606, or Strictly Tickets 073 725 7381 Tickets cost R100, or R120 if you want to get a bus-ride from Johannesburg through to Pretoria. The little known friendship between President Harry S. Truman and a humble Jewish haberdasher, Eddie Jacobson, is largely ignored in the annuals of history. Yet, were it not for the close bond that existed between these two very different men there is every likelihood that the State of Israel might not have come into being in 1948. The fascination of so much hinging on so little is the essence of an intriguing play by Victor Gordon. Truman and Jacobson served together in World War 1 establishing a haberdasher store thereafter which later fell victim to the post-war depression. While Truman embarked on a stellar political career, Jacobson worked as a traveling salesman before opening his own clothing store some years later. Despite their divergent paths, their close friendship and mutual loyalty, described by some as 'akin to that of brothers', never diminished and had dramatic consequences on the course of history. With Truman's ascendency to the presidency one of the first problems he faced was the desperate need for a homeland for those Jews who survived the Holocaust. The British withdrawal from Palestine placed the fate of the region in the hands of the newly formed United Nations which opted for the partition of the territory into two independent states, one Arab and one Jewish. However, this depended on the General Assembly where a two thirds majority was required to bring the dream of a Jewish state to fruition. How the friendship between Truman and Jacobson impacted on this pivotal moment in history is told in 'Harry & Ed' which features two luminaries of South African theatre, Anthony Fridjhon and David Butler. Direction is by Robert Fridjhon.

Was Geneva a Durban 2?

SA Jewish Board of Deputies National Director Wendy Kahn was recently in Geneva as an observer at the controversial Durban Review Conference. Next week you'll be able to join the SAJBD for a feedback session on the conference, giving you an opportunity to ask questions and voice your concerns.

Wendy will be presenting on the topic "Was Geneva a Durban 2".

Johannesburg Wednesday 13 May 17:30 at Beyachad RSVP: Shirley Beagle 011 645-2583/ beagle@beyachad.co.za Cape Town (in conjuction with the Living Newspaper) Tuesday 26 May, 8pm at Marais Rd Shul RSVP Debbie Katzeff 021 464-6700/ sajbd@ctjc.co.za

Judge Goldstone vs the State of Israel: How Does the Defendant Plead?

This week, investigators from the tirelessly anti-Israel UN Human Rights Council are meeting in Geneva to plan their fact finding mission into human rights abuses committed in the January Gaza war. But leading the team is the widely respected South African Jewish Judge, Richard Goldstone. In the last few weeks he has been instrumental in increasing the scope of the inquiry to include Palestinian violations of international law as well—a remarkably unique situation for a UNHRC commission. Thus, this investigation cannot just be dismissed as an anti-Israel witch hunt out of hand. Israel faces a very serious dilemma: to cooperate or not to cooperate.

Goldstone, in my opinion, should not have accepted the appointment. Not only should judges be independent when dispensing justice but they need to be seen as impartial. While I do not doubt Goldstone’s professionalism, I don’t believe, given his Jewish affiliation, that his ruling will ever be seen as impartial. If he finds against Israel, Zionist will say he was trying to overcompensate for his Jewishness. If he finds for Israel, Arabs will say that he has sided with his co-religionists over the truth. The Palestinian leadership in Gaza is already making these claims. According to the Los Angeles Times, one Hamas official complained to al-Arab television that Goldstone, because he is Jewish, ‘will no doubt side with the Zionist enemy.' And to be honest, they have lots of ammo to back up their claim. Not only ix Goldstone a Jew, but he also has strong ties to the state of Israel. He is a trustee of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and a president emeritus of World ORT.

Goldstone claimed in an email exchange with Joel Pollak of Guide to the Perplexed that ‘an independent and even-handed inquiry into the Gaza events is necessary and in the interests of peace in the Middle East’.  I am afraid no matter what he does his commission will not be able to achieve this noble goal. His ethnicity and associating with the state of Israel effectively rules this out. But he has accepted the post and Israel has had to decide how to deal with the investigation with him as its chair.

Early reports out of Jerusalem seemed to indicate that Israel would boycott the investigation. A letter was purported to have been sent to Goldstone through the Israeli embassy in Geneva informing him and the council that Israel believed it was "impossible to cooperate with the committee" in its inquiry. Anything spawned by the vociferously anti-Israel UNHRC was deemed by the Jewish state to be hostile and illegitimate. To be honest, I understand their point. Why is it that Israel is under investigation for war crimes and not the numerous perennial human rights abusers? Israel is a democratic country with a fiercely independent Supreme Court to deal with any of the potential abuses that may have taken place, so why does it need the UNHRC to intervene? In fact, the army has conducted its own investigation and found no evidence of international legal violations by the IDF.  No, this investigation is certainly not fair and the likelihood of an honest result is by no means guaranteed, but I still think Israel must comply. Whether we agree or not, the commission has legitimacy in the eyes of most of the world. And boycotting it will sadly not discredit its findings when they are released. Israel’s only hope of limiting the international, political and legal fall-out is to make public all the evidence it has and address all the commission’s concerns. If it does not cooperate, not only will it be found guilty of war crimes, but it will be seen even by some of its supporters as if it has something to hide.

There is no doubt the playing field is not even but that is no reason just to throw the entire game. It just means that Israel has to play harder. Their evidence must be more reliable, their legal arguments smarter and their PR response more eloquent. Given its history, I have faith that this is a challenge that the Jewish state can surely rise to!

My response to the SA Medical Journal

I’m sending this letter to the SA Medical Journal in response to the recent editorial slamming Israel.

---

Dear Sir,

My father has recently been diagnosed with cancer and is currently receiving treatment at one of the top medical centres in South Africa.

As you can probably imagine, this has been an almost unbearable ordeal for not only my father, but my family as well. When someone is diagnosed with cancer, the entire family is in need of care, not just the person suffering with the killer disease.

I read with interest your recent editorial entitled “A jaw for a tooth – the human rights costs of the Gaza invasion.” Suffering beside my father in one of the country’s leading medical institutions, which I thank God that we are lucky enough to have access to, has instilled in me the belief that few professions are less worthy of mouthing off about human rights in other lands, than is yours.

The medical profession in South Africa is guilty of a complete lack of compassion and worse, a level of service delivery that reminds me of our taxi industry.

The overwhelming majority of taxi drivers perform their core function. They transport passengers from A to B. They do this, in most cases, quite successfully. But the service they render is appalling. One may not question a taxi driver, and those in need of his services, have little choice of an alternative.

The same applies to the specialist doctors that roam the halls of our leading hospitals. The doctors, on the whole, do their job. But like the taxi drivers, I have found them to be overwhelmingly arrogant, distant and abusive. I have found it difficult to ask doctors any questions and when I do, the response I receive is condescending, abrupt and often downright mean. I work in the IT industry on systems that are nowhere near mission-critical. Even so, if I had to treat my customers the way the doctors treat theirs, I would have been fired long ago. At this point it’s worth reminding the doctors that their customer includes the immediate family. This doesn’t mean they need to treat the family, but they need to provide them with updates and information, the same way I need to update all project stakeholders with project status changes. We have now interacted with various different doctors and it is constantly near impossible to get any kind of discussions, return-calls or progress reports from them. The doctors would do well to remember that they are in fact paid for their services. Perhaps they think the money from the medical aids comes from some mysterious black-hole? It doesn’t. It comes from the families whom they neglect to communicate with.

Unfortunately, we are left with no recourse but to tolerate this abuse. Complaints may invoke even poorer levels of treatment. We are nothing but helpless passengers inside the taxi of an arrogant, abusive and, in this case, very wealthy driver, with no alternative modes of transport in sight.

My jeremiad against the doctors comes with a small solution. A small idea that can make the world of difference to the family that suffers at the bedside. It is simple, and shouldn’t take very long to complete. Provide the family with daily updates! You are already keeping notes of your patient’s condition, why not translate those notes into legible English so that the family can access them every day to understand the progress. This would take an extra minute per patient when doing your daily rounds. It’s no good informing only the patients of the progress when they are likely to forget everything you have just told them!

This is just a start. How about following the examples of hospitals in the United States that employ internet technologies to improve communication? The Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH) makes use of a social technology called CarePages - an online system to help patients manage communication with their loved ones. Perhaps you could study other online healthcare communities in the United States, particulalry the way doctors make use of them to interact with patients and their families. One example is the American Cancer Survivors Network. Social technologies are having a massive impact on the way we get what we need from each another, and they are starting to make an impact inside large enterprises. What is keeping them away from our hospitals?

I don’t have much hope that the situation will change. The doctors, like the taxi drivers, are in the position of power and the customers need to focus on footing the bill, lowering their heads and thanking the doctors for whatever sloppy attention they may be lucky enough to receive.

Either way, there is a problem, and I suggest you sir, focus on your professions own shortcomings before doing the all-to-easy job of pretending to care about human rights in other parts of the world. The medical profession is in need of some serious soul searching. As long as this situation persists, you are in no position to cast judgement on the rest of the world.

Live from Durban 2: The Show Goes On

Former SAUJS chairlady, Caylee Talpert, gives us another update about the events of the last few days at what must be one of the most Orwellian events of the decade, a United Nations anti-racism conference that has given a platform to some of the worst human rights abusers on the planet; a conference where all Jewish students were temporally banned on account of the actions of some Jews; and where real victims of genocide like Darfuris had to protest in the hope of getting some attention.

---

The Show goes on! A show is pretty much exactly what over the past week the Durban Review Conference has become. Whilst at times very entertaining, unfortunately I don’t think I walked away from “Durban Two” with much more than I would have, had I had spent the week at the Cannes Film Festival and I don’t think the victims of racism would have known any difference either for that matter.

Despite a fully planned schedule, Day 2 of the conference (Tuesday) started off fairly quietly for the students. First we were forced to remain in the “Welcome Centre” where we were based as a result of security threats. However even after we were “released” we still could not enter the UN as we had lost our accreditation as a result of the two clowns that ‘stole the show’ during Ahmadinejad’s speech the day before. The fact that these students were actually accredited as part of the French Jewish Students Union and not the European Union of Jewish Students (EUJS) like the rest of us, didn’t seem to make a difference, after all Jews are Jews.

Once we were eventually allowed back in (and not before the media had reported on the Jewish Students losing their accreditation), we attended a few side events. Some proved enlightening with human rights heroes like Ellie Wiesel, Erwin Cotler and Alan Dershowitz addressing the audience (all organised by Jewish organisations); but others such as the one on “Human Rights, Discrimination and Islamaphobia”, organised by Interfaith International and Al Hakim Foundation, were not so enlightening. (Although NGO events like these where accusations of ‘the Zionists controlling the world’ and committing the ‘gravest violations in the 21st Centaury’ are a regular occurrence and hardly a newsworthy event for those more familiar with the United Nations Human Rights Council’s daily activity.)

The day ended with a Darfur Rally to try and put this horrific Genocide on the conference’s agenda. The Rally comprised largely of Jews, Darfuris and a couple of international students. Despite around 200 people and two hours spent chanting ‘Al Bashir, Criminal’ or ‘UN listen up, stop the Genocide in Darfur’ lead by the Darfuris, there was little news coverage. I guess after a day spent on Ahmadinejad, Darfur just isn’t that interesting anymore, after all its already been going on for 6 years and the deaths of over 500 000 people and displacement of 2.5 million others is just another tragedy taking place in Africa, far away from the imposing structure of the UN building with its well manicured lawns and massive halls. Yet another example of the indifference and myopia of a world where Genocide has become ‘old news’.

Wednesday we were again forced to stay away from the UN after the ‘Frenchies’ decided to hand out red noses in the council and again we were all found guilty by association. Instead we attended a series of lectures in the morning by human rights activists from around the world. This event, organised by a coalition of NGOs showcased the real heroes in the fight for human rights, (such as Nazanin Afshim Jam, an Iraqi born women who now runs the organisation “stop Child Executions” or Ahmed Diraige, a former governor of Darfur). Surely it is these people and not the likes of Ahmadinejad who should have been given the official platform at a conference dedicated to fighting racism and intolerance.

The afternoon brought an Israel conference organised by the multitude of Jewish NGOs that had come to defend Israel and Human Rights and decided to make use of the wealth of dynamic people who were already at the conference. The highlight for me was a panel on humanitarian projects carried out by Israel or Israelis both internally and around the world. We heard from Gal Lousky, CEO of Israeli flying Aid that provided humanitarian relief in countries all over the world, many of which are hostile to Israel; Dr Sion Houri from the “Save a child’s heart” program whose main recipients are children in the developing and especially Arab world and the stories of an Ethiopian Jew, a Sudanese Refugee and a Bedouin academic. For me, it was nice to be reminded why I initially got involved in the fight to defend Israel. While this was undeniably an Israeli publicity exercise and the audience largely Jewish, I think sometimes we forget about these things and may even begin to hold Israel to the unrealistic standard that the politicised International bodies do.

I now study in Israel at Hebrew University and one of the things I both love and hate about studying there is its openness and the freedom it offers to subscribe to any views. Much of my time I spend looking at the problems in Israeli society which, as I’m learning, seem to become more numerous by the day. Yet, at the same time, I am proud that this is what I am being taught. That I am not being subjected to a rose-coloured version of the country I love so much and that myself and other Israeli students are being empowered with the knowledge to do something about Israel’s problems. As Allan Dershowitz puts it, “in life there is always a simple answer and it’s always wrong!” Because life is complex and filled with nuances and ambiguity, simple answers just don’t exist especially with regard to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Israel has its own problems that cannot be ignored but unless you are willing to make Israel your home, you can only hold it to a standard that you would expect of every other state in the world. This equality among the nations of the world is all that we ask from the UN Human Rights Council. From my experience of the last few day at this UN sponsored ‘anti-racism’ circus it unfortunately seems that such equality for the Jewish state is still being denied.

Durban wrap up from Wendy Kahn

Here's the final piece from the Geneva Durban Review Conference from the National Director of the SA Jewish Board of Deputies, Wendy Kahn. Wendy sent this through last week Thursday, but I've unfortunately not found the time to publish it until now.

---

Good morning South Africa.

Today is my last day at the conference and it certainly appears that the conference is starting to wind down. I must start with a fabulous quote that is doing the rounds here, "Giving the Holocaust denying Ahmadinejad the platform to lecture the world about racism is like inviting Bernie Madoff to headline a global conference on business ethics".

The conference document was formally adopted on Tuesday and yesterday saw submissions by all the countries present. They are running late however and the last 13 countries will provide their comments this morning.

Governmental submissions

The speeches contained a long string of condemnations of Ahmadinejad's offensive introductory speech, mainly coming from Argentina, Ukraine, the UK, France, Sweden and Spain, while Austria, Lithuania and the Holy See also heavily criticised.

The last country to present their submission yesterday was Iran, who surprise surprise was quite unrepentant for their Monday onslaught! They heavily criticised Norway and other countries that had criticised Ahmadinejad's speech calling for `freedom of expression as a human right' and called for countries to cease from making `judgemental remarks'. Iran also took exception to the Secretary General of the United Nation's critical remarks about the speech. They will be exercising their right of reply - not sure when that will be.

NGO session with High Commissioner

Yesterday I attended a question and answer session with the High Commissioner, Navi Pillay. A few interesting points came out of this:

1. There were no overtly anti-Israel questions (I believe this would have been very different in 2001).
2. A representative from a French African NGO asked a lengthily question (more like a mini speech) in which he condemned pro-Palestinian groups for hijacking the conference and detracting from the voices of the real victims.
3. One of our Caucus asked a question on what lessons were learned from the Ahmadinejad speech on Monday to which the High Commissioner responded "if governments leave the process they are not present to respond".

Sitting opposite us at the session (and doing exceptional networking at the conference) were a trio of Neturei Karta folk with their Palestinian flag badges - due to UN regulations, they had to leave their trademark sandwich boards at home.

NGO submissions in the Plenary

Following extensive debates and serious confusion, approximately 150 NGO's will be making 2 minute submissions in the plenary today.

Again with thanks to our SA delegation, we were able to assist the Caucus in unravelling some of the confusion around this matter and approximately 4 Jewish NGO's will be making submissions, one of which will use their slot on behalf of the International Jewish Coalition, which will be presented by the co-Chair of the Jewish Human Rights Coalition (UK) Rosalind Preston.

Was the Durban Review like Durban 1?

When drafting our International Jewish Coalition statement we included the comment, "The World Conference Against Racism in 2001 is remembered for the antisemitism on the streets of Durban. The Durban Review in Geneva will be remembered for the antisemitism within the Assembly hall of the UN, as clearly spelt out by Iran's President."

It must be noted however that this speech was followed by unequivocal condemnation by many countries, by the Secretary General of the UN and the HRC High Commissioner.

None of the violent and overt antisemitism as seen in Durban in 2001 was evident here in Geneva.

The event was monitored closely by the authorities who showed a zero tolerance for any unruly behaviour or violation of rules.

The anti-Israel or pro Iran rallies were dismally attended and were certainly in no way reminiscent of 2001.

Thought I'd share the comments of Ronald Eissens from the Dutch Magenta Foundation, who made the following comparison:

"People ask us all the time if this conference is like Durban. No, it's not. It is absolutely incomparable. Foremost size-wise. Only 314 accredited NGOs here with 1073 NGO delegates, which is nothing like Durban, but also atmosphere-wise. It is mostly a well-behaved affair with only a few incidents. Stickers and some flyers were confiscated by the UN Police. A small number of side-events were cancelled because of content not in line with the DDPA and/or abuse language. A few NGO delegates and one journalist had their accreditation revoked. Kudos to the UN people at the Palais the Nations for doing a great job, special kudos to the UN Police and security forces for keeping everybody on the straight and narrow and handling it all with utmost care and friendliness.

International Jewish Coalition

International Jewry was far better prepared for this conference. Preparation had started early last year and it could be clearly seen how more effective the responses were.

The coalition provided a coordinated front at the Conference. It was wonderful to see Jewish NGO's putting aside their egos and turf issues to work together for the common good.

Our caucus office (situated in the WJC suites near the UN) was a constant buzz of activity, run in a professional and efficient way.

The Geneva community also arranged a fully equipped Welcome Centre for us at the entrance to the UN, where we had our caucus briefings and we could buy kosher sandwiches and salads. The community welcomed us with a smile and warm hospitality.

This afternoon I leave Geneva to return home, feeling gratified that International Jewry played a significant role in preventing a repeat of 2001.

Regards

WENDY

Holocaust Survivor Don Krausz on Yom Hashoah

Earlier this week I asked Don Krausz, chairman of the South African Holocaust Survivors Association, to share some thoughts with us on Yom Hashoah (Holocaust Remembrance Day). Here is his reply, which he has also sent to the SA Jewish Report.

---

Dear Steven and Michael,

On Tuesday we lit six flares to commemorate four and a half million Jewish men and women and one and a half million children who were murdered in the Holocaust. We stood before a memorial that showed six giant bronze hands projecting from the earth, each holding a ram’s horn, a Shofar, the ancient Jewish instrument used to alert the people. They signify the final message from six million martyred human beings.

The Shofarim face towards each other. If they were meant to convey a message to mankind then should they not face outwards, towards the world? What was their sculptor, Herman Wald’s vision? Did he design the monument this way knowing that the world would not listen? Did he turn the Shofarim toward each other in a statement that their message would be heard and understood by Jews only?

After the liberation of the concentration and death camps the surviving inmates believed that their agony had ended. Once the civilised world learned what had occurred it would recoil in revulsion and horror. It would ensure that never again would humanity commit such inhumanity.

Instead we witnessed the massacres of Biafra, Campuchea, the Chinese Cultural Revolution, the horrors of Apartheid, the tortures and slaughters of Central Africa, Vietnam, Rwanda, Tibet, Bosnia and now Darfur and the Moslem world.

The lesson of the Holocaust seems to have been that one may perpetrate mass murder with impunity.

Hitler’s ghost prevails. His hatred and atrocities are denied, justified or advocated.

The word Zionism has become a pejorative.

Had these maligned Zionists been able to create the State of Israel in 1933, millions of men, women and children might have been saved.

We Jews are left to ponder on what has changed since 1945. Not Mankind; not the hatred. Then we realise that we Jews have changed. We stand taller, more confident, proud, self-assured. We are readier to fight our enemies whether by word or deed.

Few survived the Warsaw Ghetto uprising, but its example has inspired us ever since.

The establishment of the State of Israel in 1948 provided Jews with their first safe haven in 2,000 years. They and their enemies learned that Jews could fight, defend their lives and their land and prevail although vastly outnumbered and outgunned.

When in 1967 Jews once more faced annihilation, that threat was removed in six days.

When terrorists high jacked a plane to Entebbe and separated Jews from non-Jews, they sealed their own fate.

When the Hamas bombarded Israeli civilians with missiles, those terrorists found themselves counting their dead among the ruins of Gaza.

We Jews have learned the message of the Holocaust: Mir seinen do! Never again!

Don Krausz

Holocaust survivor.

Hamas TV - Annihilate the Jews

Before you continue reading, remember that we shouldn't question Hamas' rule because - they were democratically elected in free and fair elections!

Via MEMRI:

On Hamas TV, Friday Sermon Cites 'Protocols of Elders of Zion,' Calls to Annihilate the Jews, Compares Jews To Dogs "It Is the Jews Who Are Leading the Vehement Campaign Against the Muslims Today" Preacher: "Who is leading the world today against Islam and its people? Who is leading the fierce and vehement campaign in the world today against Islam and its people? The answer is as clear as day: It is the nation of the Jews. It is the Jews who are leading the vehement campaign against the Muslims today. [...] "We Muslims know best the nature of the Jews, because the Koran has informed us about this, and because the pure Sunna of the Prophet Muhammad has devoted much space to informing the Muslims of the truth about the Jews and their hostility to Islam and its Prophet." [...] "[In] 'The Protocols of the Elders of Zion,' The Jews Included Their Plan... Jews Today Are Weaving Their Spider Webs in Order to Encircle Our Nation" "Their famous book, the existence of which is denied by the reasonable people among them, the so-called Protocols of the Elders of Zion – but we call it the Protocols of the Idiots of Zion... In this book, the Jews included their plan to besiege the whole world by land, by air, by sea, by ideology, by economy, and by the media, as is happening today, my brothers in the nation of the Prophet Muhammad. The Jews today are weaving their spider webs in order to encircle our nation like a bracelet encircles the wrist, and in order to spread corruption throughout the world." [...] "Allah Willing, The Moment Will Come When... Not a Single Jew Or Zionist is Left on the Face of the Earth"; "Dogs And Pups Bark and Bite, and... Are Impure – That Is The Truth About the Jews" "Allah willing, the moment will come when their property will be destroyed and their sons annihilated, until not a single Jew or Zionist is left on the face of the Earth. [...]

And now for a tale about a dog that irritated the neighbours and then begot a pup. Just like with the Jews you see.

"There once was a dog that frightened the entire neighborhood with its barking. This dog begot a pup which was more wicked than its father. The Jews are always the same, brothers. Both dogs and pups bark and bite, and both are impure. That is the truth about the Jews."

Perhaps we need to negotiate with Hamas and understand their perspective. Pictures are worth a thousand words, so let's start with a picture.

It's the Jews stupid!

Here's a superb article at the Wall Street Journal by Brett Stephens, asking some uncomfortable questions of the anti-Israel crowd: Our Selective Moral Outrage - Why does Israel face more moral opprobrium than Russa?

I would love Dr Ncayiyana from the SA Medical Journal to read this article and then explain why his journal has such a "disproportionate" focus on Israel in contrast to other far worse political hot-spots. 

Few places on earth have been as systematically brutalized over the past decade as Chechnya. So you might have thought that the Russian government's decision last week to declare an end to its "counterterrorism" operations in the territory would have been an occasion for somber reflection in the Western media. Forget it. It's a 600-word news item at best. Here's a contrast to ponder. Since the beginning of the second intifada in the autumn of 2000, roughly 6,000 Palestinians have been killed by Israeli fire. That figure includes combatants, as well as those killed in January's fighting in Gaza. As for Chechnya, there are no solid figures for the number of civilians killed since the second war began in late 1999; estimates range anywhere between 25,000 and 200,000. Chechnya's population, at a little over one million, is about one-third or one-fourth that of the Palestinians. That works out to between 25 to 200 Chechen deaths per 1,000, as against 1.5 to 2 Palestinian deaths per 1,000.

Read it all for it is good.

Perhaps some of the herd of anti-Israel activists and commentators truly are not aware of their bias. Perhaps there is some subliminal mechanism at work which blinds them to something which becomes so obvious when you consider some basic facts, such as those mentioned by Stephens in the above article.

Live from Durban - SAJBD Diary Day 2

Here's day 2 of the Durban Review Conference diary from SA Jewish Board of Deputies National Director Wendy Kahn.

---

Well the first day of the Durban Review Conference started with quite a bang, thanks to the Iranian Leader.

The International Jewish Caucus is incensed that a man representing a country inflicting such grotesque human rights violations (besides his Holocaust Denial and `wipe Israel off the map’ statements) could be allowed to be one of the introductory speakers at a conference purporting to further the causes of Human Rights and opposing racism. Particularly offensive to have this Holocaust Denier speak at the Eve of Yom Hashoah.

It was so exciting to see the massive walk-out during his speech as he began to demonise Israel and Zionists. Included in the walk out were all the EU government representatives. You could see a visibly empty hall.

The Foreign Minister of Norway then made a speech rebuking the Ahhmadinejad speech.

Israel has recalled its Ambassador to Switzerland in protest to the Ahmadinejad reception in this country by the President.

Two other highlights for South Africans:

• Foreign Affairs Minister Dlamini Zuma addressed the conference. It was quite a balanced and comprehensive speech. She supported the Norwegian FM and mentioned the Shoah.
• A statement was read from President Mandela about the values of anti racism and the importance of this conference.

Some other developments on the 21st of April:

• The Czech Republic (Chair of the EU) has formally withdrawn from the DRC
• The accreditation of European Union of Students was revoked in response to their protests yesterday.

More detailed feedback about two events yesterday:

1. The Ahmadinejad speech (and the responses)
2. The Geneva Community’s Yom Hashoah event

Speech by Iranian President Ahmadinejad (20/4/09, 15:15)

Some interesting information about the Ahmadinejad speech yesterday:

It was a watershed moment of this conference in that it completely discredited the Human Rights and anti-Racism agenda that a conference of this nature should be holding dear, vindicating our concerns. That a head of state of a country with the atrocious human rights record that Iran is responsible is asked to be an introductory speaker of an anti Racism conference is a complete disgrace.

While I believe that the International Jewish Caucus and other Jewish Organisations responded effectively, and that there were many hard hitting international responses, it still does not detract from the offensiveness of this event.

To give you some further insights into the afternoon:

1. The Caucus worked with the students the night before in developing materials and a strategy to respond to the speech, politically, in terms of communications, media and student activity.
2. The students started the day by approaching people at the accreditation/registration tent to try and inform them of how the Ahmedinejad speech would threaten the values of the conference and encouraging a walk out.
3. The speech was included in the introductory governmental speeches, directly after UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon’s address.
4. As soon as he started demonising Israel, EU governments stood up and left the room, as did many NGO representatives. Of the 23 states that walked out, were Jordan and Morocco.
5. The clown that ran to the Iranian President during his speech was a European Union of Jewish Students member – he is now a celebrity.
6. Many students stood up and heckled from the gallery.
7. It should be noted that while there were walk outs, many of those that remained applauded the speech.
8. The President of the Commission rebuked those in the Plenary who had caused the commotion for this `disrespectful behaviour’.
9. Following on his departure from the conference hall he was the recipient of a major student protest (students with red clown noses and many powerfully messaged signs).
10. There was a further protest at his press conference. Unlike at Durban 1, the Jewish protesters (students) vastly outnumbered their opponents.
11. The Norwegian Foreign Minister heavily criticised his statements. Our Foreign Minister Dlamini Zuma praised the Norwegian FM for these words. She also said that `this is not a conference for racism or finger pointing’.
12. Israel has recalled its Swiss Ambassador in response to The Swiss President’s warm reception of Ahmadinejad.

Click "continue reading" to access the restof the report...

Durban 2 Protest Photos

Be sure to take a look at the photo's we have added to the previous guest blog from Caylee Talpert who is sending us updates from Geneva. You can find it here: Live from Durban2 - Staring Down Ahmadinejad

Live from Durban - Staring down Ahmadinejad

 Among the 200 odd Jewish students representing the Jewish people at the United Nation 'Racism' Review Conference (Durban 2) is former SAUJS Chairlady Caylee Talpert.  She has offered to blog for us live from Durban 2. Below is her first installment of yesterday's shocking events. How can it be, we must ask, that a UN conference dedicated to fighting racism could invite as a key note speaker a Holocaust denier - on Holocaust memorial day?

Caylee and all the other Jewish students who are standing up and opposing this hypocricy deserve our lasting respect. I, having been a delegate at Durban 1, know how rough it can get. One literally stares pure hatred in the face. But face it down we must if the words 'never again' are to have any meaning.
 

---

Today I spent Yom Hashoah somewhat differently to what I’m used to in South Africa, sitting in the hot sun at Great Park Cemetery each year watching a ceremony. Instead, I spent the day at the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva, Switzerland, the very institution established with the intention of preventing further Genocides and atrocities in the 21st Century; In the very city where the Avian Conference took place prior to the Holocaust, effectively guaranteeing the world’s indifference in the face of the Nazi onslaught and eventually extermination of 6 million Jews.

This week I am attending the World Review Conference against Racism, Racial intolerance Xenophobia and other forms of Discrimination. I am here on behalf of SAUJS as part of a delegation organised by The European Union of Jewish students (EUJS) and working together with WUJS and Jewish students from around the word. The name of the conference is quite a mouthful but undeniably suggests worthy aspirations. However, unfortunately as those familiar with the first such conference in Durban in 2001 know well, the conference’s impact doesn’t go much further than its noble sounding title and in fact in 2001 did the exact opposite, offering a showcase of some of the worst anti-Semitism the world has seen since the Holocaust. In fact what becomes evident is that if anything, anti-Semitism and indifference and the way in which they paralyze international bodies are to a large extent still responsible for allowing the continuation of many of the atrocities in the world today.

The day begun with a demonstration outside the UN where as a group of diverse students from all over the world taped their mouths shut (no small task for students) and held posters protesting the silence of the UN on some of the most tragic human rights violations of our time. Our posters displayed graphic pictures ranging from abuse of women, to murder of gays, child-abuse and the Genocide in Darfur. Perhaps the most moving part however was when a young Sudanese couple who were walking past asked to join us in the protest, taping their mouths shut and standing alongside us as part of our demonstration. Unfortunately, however, once our demonstration had concluded, we heard little further mention of these crimes the rest of the day. In fact, instead of hearing anything about Human Rights, the conference and all discussions became focussed almost exclusively on the notorious president of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinijad and his speech that afternoon. Despite the fact that this was already the second such UN address by the fervent racist the real insult was that it was at the Human Rights Council, on Yom Hashoah and with a personal welcome from the Swiss President, you couldn’t stage a greater mockery of the conference if you tried. Granted the EU delegation and some other delegations walked out (interestingly this even included Jordan) when Ahmadinijad began spewing his racism, hatred and anti-Semitism, but the question remains, why was he there in the first place? How do you explain to the Iranian citizens protesting outside why the man who’s still oppressing their families at home was given an almost hero’s welcome and great applause within the HUMAN RIGHTS Council at a conference on RACISM. Hypocrisy? The UN? No way!

As for SA, well obviously walking out was never an option- to take a public stand on racism...come on now-that’s just not SA’s foreign policy! Foreign Monster Nkosazama Dlamini Zuma did address the assembly shortly after, she did indirectly condemn Ahmadinijad in that she opposed the conference being used as a forum for hatred but anything stronger than that-well that’s just pushing it... this was a “positive speech.” Or at least when you put it into the context that it was South Africa that introduced the current abbreviated reference to the Holocaust into the Draft Outcome Document because it felt the previous document placed too much emphasis on the Holocaust (which is only the worst human rights atrocity of all time). But perhaps I’m being too cynical; after all if Deputy Foreign Minister Hajaig had been our representative she may have been more inclined to commend Ahmadinijad. After all Ahmadinijad did close in calling for us “not to forget the essence of every human being and to make the world a better place.”

So it was an interesting day with lots to contemplate as I sat at the Geneva Jewish Community’s Holocaust memorial this evening, in front of the famous three legged chair, a monument to land mine victims and with the flags of the 182 UN members waving in the background. (Considering the fact that the entire ceremony was in French which I don’t understand a word of, I had plenty of time to contemplate.) I began to question why I was here as well as the almost 200 other Jewish students from around the world that are here with me and the countless Jewish organisations all represented at the conference. And I realised that I had to be there, that the conference deals with the two things most important to me in the whole world: the Jewish people, and by extension the State of Israel and Human Rights, the two being in my mind intimately connected. I’ve always cared deeply about Human Rights, perhaps it’s because of my identity as a Jew growing up as the granddaughter of a Holocaust survivor that caused me to care so much; or perhaps its growing up in South Africa where despite being born after the horrors of Apartheid it’s still very much an integral part of my consciousness, or perhaps it’s the Tutsi survivors I heard speak on my trip to Rwanda last year and the gruesome sites I was exposed to on that trip or the stories of the Sudanese refugees I am now working with in Israel. All of these factors culminate in making it virtually impossible for me not to care about human rights, to want to end the horrors that are still so prevalent and affect so many people in the world today.

And the second reason I was there, is Israel, is because I’m Jewish and because when people try delegitimising the country that offers the only guarantee to my people that a Holocaust can never happen again, I care. Especially in a world where such atrocities still exist and are known and yet continue nevertheless. I need to defend the Jewish state, even if I have my own reservations, even if some of their policies I myself don’t agree with. In a world where a man calling for Israel’s destruction is given a central platform to voice his call for the state’s Annihilation, effectively a call to genocide, by the UN’s own definition, I have to care, I have to be there and to speak out and make my voice heard. However, it’s not only because I feel a need to defend Israel from unjustified attack and effectively discrimination when it is the only state singled out in a world full of state atrocities. What bothers me about the UN and particularly the Human rights Council’s obsessive focus on Israel is that the real human rights violators, the countries that allow for the stoning of women, children forced into becoming murderers as child soldiers or hanging people on the basis of their sexuality do not get discussed. Anti-Semitism has hijacked the human rights council and we as Jews need to use our voices to try change this, not only for ourselves but for victims all over the world, so that their rights are protected and dealt with and so that conferences on Racism can actually address the noble goals they set out to achieve.

Holocaust Survivor Don Krausz Responds to SA Medical Journal

As I continue to feature some of the work done by private individuals fighting against the bias against Israel in our media, I now turn to another tireless opponent of this hatred, Don Krausz. As we slowly move into Yom Hashoah (Holocaust Remembrance day), here's a letter from Don, himself a Holocaust survivor, in response to the March editorial of the SA Medical Journal. The letter was only recently sent in, we will watch next month to see if gets published. I doubt that it will.

Here's Don...

---

Dear Sir,

Your article of March 2009 headed “A jaw for a tooth – the human rights costs of the Gaza invasion” refers.

I am a Holocaust survivor. During the years of the German occupation of Europe we Jews were bombarded by every form of hatred, vituperation, slander and insult imaginable. We knew perfectly well that the accusations and calumnies printed and broadcast against us were lies and learned to ignore them. Our attitude was that the fools that believed the incredible statements made against us had to be amazingly stupid and gullible to believe them.

That is how I feel about your article.

I worked in Israel from 1954 to 58 and was a witness to and victim of frequent attacks by so-called Fedayeen, Moslem terrorists. Not far from where I worked a busload of civilians was murdered.

Those Fedayeen also had their motivations – they were fighting against the Occupation of their land. The fact that there was not a single Israeli soldier or settlement in the West Bank or Gaza was beside the point. That occupation only came about during 1967.

Since then we have had to bear with the atrocities of Deir Jassin which were disproved during a BBC interview, the massacres of Jenin which were subsequently denied by the UN and a member of the Palestinian authority and the ghastly killing by the Israeli army of the little Al Dura boy which a French court eventually found to be a fabrication. We now have the inhumanities of Gaza which people like you believe and which I have seen denied by inhabitants of Gaza themselves.

You write how Israel and Egypt sealed-of the exits from Gaza. Why? Something to do with not wanting Hamas terrorists to enter their land? You refer to the seismic aerial bombardment. I have lived through many bombardments. Have you the slightest notion of the horror and terror felt by people that have endured the bombardment of 7,000 rockets and 3,000 mortar bombs in Israeli civilian towns such as Sderot and its neighbours during the past eight years?

Sure the casualty rate on the Israeli side was miniscule. Israel built shelters for its citizens. Didn’t the Hamas realise that after firing 10,000 missiles at Israeli civilian settlements there would be retaliation? Why did they not provide shelters? Or do they believe that the best weapons in their armoury are Palestinians killed by Israeli fire?

Your article seems to prove that.

You mention the 1,380 Palestinians killed. First of all I have seen denials of that figure by Palestinian hospital personnel. Secondly I have seen videos of armed and uninjured Palestinians jumping into UN ambulances. Those fighters wore no uniforms. Should they become casualties and one removed their weaponry, then how could one distinguish them from civilians?

You speak of the torrent of indignation at the viciousness and vindictiveness of the military action. Professor Ncayiyana, if my nearest and dearest were living in towns within range of Gaza and were being subjected to 80 rockets a day I would wipe Gaza off the face of the earth. Germany killed 51,000 civilians in the bombing of Britain. Churchill promised to return every bomb tenfold and he did. If you had had to report on that then I can imagine the torrent of indignation that you would have displayed at such viciousness and vindictiveness.

In 2005 Israel withdrew its army and settlers from Gaza. Will you give me one good reason why the Hamas kept shooting at those civilians? Or why the S. A. Medical Journal never took up their case until Palestinians became victims?

I could continue in similar vein. Let me just say that I don’t think your article does you credit as an unbiased human being or as an editor who is supposed to have an obligation to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

Don Krausz

Previously at IAS

• SA Medical Journal Slams Israel

Live from Durban 2

Today marked the beginning of the Durban review conference in Geneva. Dubbed Durban 2, it has followed the path set by the previous anti-Racism conference in Durban 2000, which turned into an anti-Semitic hate-fest.

One of the many hateful posters on display at the World Conference against Racism in Durban in 2001. Will Durban 2 be a repeat? (Photo from Eye on the UN)

Like its predecessor, this conference will hijack time that should be focused on discussing solutions to the very real problems of racism in the world in order to delegitimise and demonise Israel. Once again, the real problems of the world need to be set aside so the Palestinian lobby can have their day in the sun lying and seething about the Jewish state.

This time however, the Jew haters haven’t had everything exactly their way. This is honesty just too brilliant...in a move now being referred to as an exceptional coup d’état, UN Watch managed to expose the septic state of UN hypocrisy whereby, in the words of UN Watch “the chief organisers of a world ‘anti-racism’ conference are themselves the worst perpetrators of racism and discrimination".

UN Watch managed to organise a Palestinian doctor who has been a victim of Libya’s discrimination to confront the Durban Review Conference’s Chairperson, Libyan Najjat Al-Hajjaj, on Libya’s brutal torture and scapegoating of five Bulgarian nurses and a Palestinian doctor. The video clip has been viewed around the world.

Click here for the full briefing from UN Watch.

Yesterday, Barak Obama pulled the US out of the conference due to the failure of the review panel to address the concerns that the US had with the excessive focus on Israel. The US joins Israel, Canada, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Poland, Italy, Germany, the Czech Republic and Australia who will all be boycotting the conference.

South African Jewish Board of Deputies (SAJBD) National Director Wendy Kahn is attending the conference and has offered us a unique insider view into the conference with an exclusive series of daily updates from Geneva. The SAJBD has lobbied long and hard to try and convince African states that the conference should focus on real racism and avoid a repeat of the anti-Semitic hatred that marred the initial conference.

In addition to the SAJBD’s updates we have a friend at the conference who has also agreed to send through updates of what she hears and sees. We will collate the two into a “Live from Durban 2” series.

The first update, from the SAJBD, appears below:

---

Today is the beginning of the Durban Review Conference to be held in Geneva.

The SA Jewish Board of Deputies is attending the Durban Review Conference (DRC) as an accredited NGO and also as part of the International Jewish Caucus, in which we have been very active.

Over the next week, I will do my best to update you on recent developments.

For today I will give you a few developments, although this will of course only reach you tomorrow (Monday). Please note that this is a summary of numerous lengthy documents.

1. There is a parallel conference (160 people) taking place in a Geneva Hotel called `Israel Review Conference: United Against Apartheid, Colonialism and Occupation, Dignity & Justice for the Palestinian People’.

   It’s been organised by the International Jewish Anti-Zionist Network, the International Coordinating Network on Palestine and the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) Committee.

   They presented a 300 page report on Israel’s Practices in the Occupied Palestinian Territories and the International Legal Prohibition on Apartheid.

   Topics included lawyers speaking about bringing Israel to the International Criminal Court and European Court of Justice for War Crimes, workshops on campaigns against the JNF, debates on Israeli Apartheid with credit to Carter’s book Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid and political experience in the trade union movement in the combat against South Africa. The concept was vaunted as a valuable tool for political mobilization and solidarity. Campaigns were proposed to launch international measures to reclaim Palestinian property and also countermeasures against those attempting to criminalise the boycott. “The world stopped Nazism, we’ll stop Zionism”.

   Posters included, “Shopping can kill....made in Israel”, “Boycott Israeli Dates”, “Don’t buy Israeli Apartheid”, “Sionisme=Apartheid”. (Information supplied by Simon Wiesenthal Centre).

2. The following countries have as of today withdrawn from the DRC conference: Israel, the US, Canada, the Netherlands, Australia, New Zealand, Poland, Germany and Italy.


3. SA Foreign Minister Dr Dlamini-Zuma will be addressing the conference today.


4. UK Foreign Secretary David Miliband has been urged by Denis MacShane MP (former no. 2 in the Foreign Office) to remove the UK from the Durban Review Conference (DRC) if Iran’s president Ahmadinejad and other governments use the event to increase anti-Semitic hate in the world. “At the first sign of hate against Jews and Israel from the podium or in any manifestations connected with the conference I hope the UK delegation will publicly withdraw and stand in solidarity with our friends in the US and Canada rather than provide cover for the Jew- and Israel-haters in the world whose record of xenophobia, discrimination and contempt for secular democracy are well-known” MacShane writes. Circulated by Jeremy Newmark, Chief Executive – the Jewish Leadership Council (UK)


5. Re Australia’s decision not to participate in the DRC. “Australia has taken this decision with regret as Australians are a people committed to eliminating racism and racial discrimination. Australia however cannot support a document which reaffirms the 2001 Durban Declaration and Program of Action in its entirety – as is the currently the case. The 2001 Declaration singled out Israel and the Middle East. Australia expressed concerns at the time and continues to have these concerns. Regrettably we cannot be confident that the Review Conference will not again be used as a platform to air offensive views including anti-Semitic views.” Extracts from press statement by Hon Stephen Smith MP, Australian Minister for Foreign Affairs.


6. Israeli Officials are upset over a planned meeting between Iranian leader Ahmadinejad and the Swiss President Hans Rudolf Merz. “there is no reason in the world to meet with Holocaust denier, exporter of terrorism and anti-Semitism” The Iranian leader is scheduled to deliver a speech at the DRC on Monday. The official added that Ahmadinejad manifestly rejects the State of Israel’s very existence, while representing everything the international community should be shunning. Ynet News 18/04/09 Update – The meeting did take place and in response Israel has recalled its ambassador – more here.


7. Ahmadinejad spoke at the conference today at lunch time and 23 EU delegates walked out as he called for an end to Zionism – details here.

We’ll get further updates as the conference proceeds.